Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Police - From: 2004 To: 2004

This page lists 53 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
McHarg v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2004] EWCh 5 (QB)
9 Jan 2004
ChD
Tugendhat J
Police, Torts - Other
The claimant police officer sought damages for malicious prosecution. The defendant applied for the claim to be struck out. Held: There was insufficient evidence to establish malice. The claim was struck out.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Harracksingh v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago and PC Neville Adams [2004] UKPC 3
15 Jan 2004
PC
Lord Hoffmann Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Scott of Foscote Sir Andrew Leggatt Sir Kenneth Keith
Commonwealth, Litigation Practice, Police, Torts - Other
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant had succeeded in a claim for damages against the police for false imprisonment and assault. He now appealed a reversal of that decision. The judge had been doubtful as to the value of the police evidence. The Court of Appeal had apparently re-assessed that evidence. Held: The trial judge had made explicit findings of fact which the appellate court had no standing to alter. The judgment was re-instated. "the conduct of the police officers was not merely "overzealous", as Mr Dingemans submitted: it was tortious. Although even upon that assumption he did not formally concede liability for malicious prosecution, it is irresistible. Not only was the prosecution doomed, but charging a person with an offence, which the arresting officer knows he has not committed, necessarily involves a lack of honest belief on the part of the officer, and his motive can only have been improper. "
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Beckett, Regina (on The Application of) v Aylesbury Crown Court [2004] EWHC 100 (Admin)
22 Jan 2004
Admn
May LJ
Road Traffic, Police
The applicant had unsuccessfully appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He had been stopped randomly to check his documents and the road worthiness of the older car. Held: The appeal failed. May LJ said: "Whether it be under section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, or under a duty at common law, a police officer has the power, provided he or she does not act capriciously or in bad faith, or provided there is no malpractice or oppression or opprobrious behaviour, to stop a motorist on the road. If thereafter there is a reasonable suspicion of drinking, a breath test may be administered."
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (X) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police Times, 02 February 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 1518; [2004] EWHC 61 (Admin); [2004] 2 All ER 1
23 Jan 2004
QBD
Wall J
Police, Human Rights
The claimant, a social worker, had been accused of two offences of indecency with children, but the complainants had failed to identify him. The respondent later disclosed those allegations when called upon to provide an enhanced criminal record certificate. The claimant made complaint. Held: The Act gave the respondent a discretion, but did nothing to disapply any common law duty of fairness. A disclosure would be an interference with the claimant's right to respect for his private life, and must therefore be necessary and proportionate. No opportunity had been given for him to make representations, and in this case it had not been procedurally fair.
Wall J said: "In my view, the guiding principles for the exercise of the power to disclose in the present case are those enunciated in R v Chief Constable of the North Wales Police, Ex p AB. Each of the respondent authorities had to consider the case on its own facts. A blanket approach was impermissible. Having regard to the sensitivity of the issues raised by the allegations of sexual impropriety made against LM, disclosure should only be made if there is a 'pressing need'. Disclosure should be the exception, and not the rule.
Police Act 1997 115(7)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Aru) v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police Times, 05 February 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 1697
30 Jan 2004
CA
Waller, Longmore, Maurice Kay, LJJ
Criminal Practice, Police, Judicial Review
The applicant had been cautioned by the police. The victim sought judicial review of that decision. The respondent now appealed. Held: The court of appeal had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a judicial review in a criminal matter where there had been a final disposal of the matter. Any appeal must be to the House of Lords. The police caution operated as such, and no review would lay. The section referred to a criminal 'cause or matter' not to proceedings. An official caution appeared to be a way of disposing of a complaint.
Maurice Kay LJ noted the use of the phrase 'criminal cause or matter' denoted a "wider ambit" than merely "criminal proceedings".
Public Order Act 1986 5 - Supreme Court Act 1981 18(1) - Administration of Justice Act 1960 1(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Aru, Regina (on The Application of) v The Chief Constable of Merseyside [2004] EWCA Civ 199; [2004] 1 WLR 1697
30 Jan 2004
CA
Waller, Longmore, Maurice Kay LJJ
Police
Appeal against cautioning after allege public order offence on basis that it had been given other than in accordance with guidelines.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina (Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary) v Police Appeals Tribunal; QBD 2-Feb-2004 - Times, 11 February 2004; [2004] EWHC 220 (Admin)
 
Laporte, Regina (on the Application of) v Gloucestershire Constabulary and others [2004] EWHC 253 (Admin); [2004] 1 All ER 874; Times, 26 February 2004
19 Feb 2004
Admn
May LJ
Police, Human Rights
The court considered a claim for judicial review of a police officer's decision to turn back a number of coaches. Each coach contained passengers en route to join a demonstration at an RAF base in Gloucestershire, the officer honestly and reasonably believing that if the coaches were allowed to proceed, all or some of the passengers would cause breaches of the peace.
May LJ confirmed the definition of breach of the peace together with the arrest powers for such a breach as follows: "There is a breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other unlawful disturbance. For such a breach of the peace when done in his presence, a constable or anyone else may arrest an offender without a warrant (see R v Howell [1981] 3 All ER 383 at 389; [1982] QB 416 at 427). A constable or an ordinary citizen has a power of arrest where there is 'reasonable apprehension of imminent danger of a breach of the peace'. This includes where the arrestor reasonably believes that a breach of the peace will be committed in the immediate future by the person arrested (see [1981] 3 All ER 383 at 388; [1982] QB 416 at 426)."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
McGibbon and Corstorphine v Her Majesty's Advocate [2004] ScotHC 13; 2004 SCCR 193; 2004 JC 60
19 Feb 2004
HCJ
Lord Johnston And Lord Justice Clerk And Lord Wheatley
Criminal Evidence, Police, Human Rights
It was conceded that there had been a breach of article 8 in the obtaining of covert video and audio recordings of the appellants' incriminating conversations. Held: If there was a breach by the police of article 8, it did not follow that the evidence thereby obtained was inadmissible. Any breach of article 8 in the obtaining of the evidence was due to acts of the police, not the Lord Advocate.
Lord Justice Clerk Gill said that the act that was relevant to section 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 was the act of the Lord Advocate in leading the evidence.
Police Act 1997 - European Convention on Human Rights 6 8 - Scotland Act 1998 57(2)
1 Citers

[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Lennon [2004] EWCA Civ 130; Times, 25 February 2004; Gazette, 18 March 2004; [2004] 2 All ER 266
20 Feb 2004
CA
Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Rix
Employment, Negligence, Police, Negligence
The claimant police officer considered being transferred to Northern Ireland. He asked and was incorrectly told that his housing allowance would not be affected by taking time off work. Held: The break between employments had affected his entitlements. The finding of a duty of care and its breach involved no new extension of the law. The officer had assumed responsibility to the claimant for the advice, and was responsible and had access to special knowledge. The relationship between the claimant and respondent was not that of employer and employee, but for these purposes was sufficiently close.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
The Attorney General v Hartwell [2004] UKPC 12; Times, 27 February 2004; Gazette, 25 March 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 1273; [2004] PIQR 27
23 Feb 2004
PC

Torts - Other, Police, Vicarious Liability
PC (The British Virgin Islands) A police officer had taken the police revolver, and used it to shoot the claimant. It was alleged that the respondent police force were vicariously liable for his acts and also negligent in failing to dismiss the officer for earlier misbehaviour. Held: The officer's activities once off duty and having left the island had nothing to do with his duties as a police officer. "Negligence as a basis of liability is founded on the impersonal (“objective”) standard of how a reasonable person should have acted in the circumstances. " and "one of the necessary prerequisites for the existence of a duty of care is foresight that carelessness on the part of the defendant may cause damage of a particular kind to the plaintiff. " In this case the gun and ammunition were available to the officer, though his use was unlawful. A duty of care existed "when entrusting a police officer with a gun the police authorities owe to the public at large a duty to take reasonable care to see the officer is a suitable person to be entrusted with such a dangerous weapon lest by any misuse of it he inflicts personal injury, whether accidentally or intentionally, on other persons. For this purpose no distinction is to be drawn between personal injuries inflicted in the course of police duties and personal injuries inflicted by a police officer using a police gun for his own ends. If this duty seems far-reaching in its scope it must be remembered that guns are dangerous weapons. The wide reach of the duty is proportionate to the gravity of the risks. " Given the eariler compliants about the officers dishonesty and his carrying of knives and guns, that duty had been breached.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
 
Larrier v Merseyside Police [2004] EWCA Civ 246
25 Feb 2004
CA

Torts - Other, Police

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Police Complaints Authority ex parte Green; HL 26-Feb-2004 - [2004] UKHL 6; Times, 27 February 2004; Gazette, 25 March 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 725; [2004] 2 All ER 209; [2004] HRLR 19; [2004] UKHRR 939
 
Gough and Another v The Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [2004] EWCA Civ 206; Times, 04 March 2004
2 Mar 2004
CA
The Hon Mr Justice Park Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Carnwath
Police
The claimants sought return of vehicle parts from the police. The police replied that the goods had been tampered with in such a way as to suggest they may have been stolen, and that they were therefore kept, even after the finish of the court procedings against the claimants, to ascertain their ownership under the 1984 Act. Held: The police had no authority to retain the goods once detention for criminal proceedings was unnecessary. Public policy reasons were insufficient to justify continued detention.
Park J referred to Lyons, and said: "First, I assume that in practice the regular use of the 1897 Act is for the straightforward and simple cases which Lord Widgery had in mind, and that it is rare for the ways in which the magistrates deal with applications under the Act to give rise to appeals . . I think [it], obvious that the police must use the Act frequently to deal with matters where they find themselves in possession of items of property which they do not want to keep but do not know whether they can legitimately destroy them or what else they can do with them. In such cases the police will understandably wish to have the protection of a court order before destroying or otherwise disposing of the goods. Second, although the magistrates' powers do extend to making orders which can affect possessory or ownership rights, I do not think that it is a main purpose of the Act that it should be used in order definitively to resolve issues of that nature. It is noteworthy that s.1(2) provides that an order under s.1(1) does not affect the right of any person to take (within six months) legal proceedings against any person in possession of property delivered by virtue of the s1(1) order. Such proceedings would, I take it, be brought in the civil courts, not in the Magistrates Court which made the order."
and "in my opinion, despite the use of the word 'may' in the Police (Property) Act and despite the feature that the Act refers to ownership rather than to possession, it would not be a proper exercise of discretion by the magistrates to refuse to order a return of property to the only known person who is admittedly entitled to possession of it at common law."
Lord Justice Potter said: "We are bound by the decisions of this court in Webb and Costello (in which the decision in Jackson does not appear to have been cited or considered). Nonetheless, I find it inherently rebarbative that, by means of civil proceedings in detinue based on the superior possessory title of the claimant over property held by the police following seizure in the course of investigating a suspected offence, a person may be held entitled to recover and continue to enjoy property even though the court may be satisfied that he is not the true owner and has acquired the property illegally, albeit the true owner is not identifiable. It seems to me that the terms of the 1897 Act are such that, in those circumstances, magistrates may well not be obliged to make an order in favour of such a claimant and in that respect the decision of Maurice Kay J in ex P. Carter may need revisiting should a case arise where the issue is a live one."
Police (Property) Act 1897 - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 22 - Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Jason Paul v Chief Constable of Humberside Police [2004] EWCA Civ 308
17 Mar 2004
CA
Mr Justice Brooke Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Kay
Torts - Other, Police

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Lancashire Constabulary, Regina (on the Application Of) v Reedley Magistrates Court [2004] EWHC 677 (Admin)
19 Mar 2004
Admn

Licensing, Police, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Wilkinson, Regina (on the Application of) v Police Complaints Authority and others [2004] EWHC 678 (Admin)
19 Mar 2004
Admn

Police
A complaint was to be investigated by the Merseyside Police. They obtained permission from the Police Complaints Authority to dispense with the investigation when the complainant had gone missing and therefore the complaint could not be investigated. The complainant turned up shortly after and his solicitors asked the PCA to re-open the investigation. The PCA agreed to the matter coming before the Administrative Court and agreed an order quashing the decision to dispense with the complaint. The police argued that the PCA could not agree to its order being quashed. Held; Gage J disagreed. He said: "It seems to me on general principles, that if the first defendant has made a dispensation under the appropriate regulations . . there must be power in it to review that dispensation and, having reviewed it, to revoke it." Gage J then quashed the dispensation.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Cleveland Police Authority and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Knapper [2004] EWHC 770 (Admin)
23 Mar 2004
Admn

Police
Application for judicial review by the Cleveland Police Authority in respect of a decision of a medical referee who was concerned in deciding, under the relevant regulations whether the ex-police officer in question had suffered injury in the execution of his duty. If he had, he was entitled to an extra amount by way of pension and gratuity over and above that which was available to him, having retired from the Force on the grounds of ill health.
[ Bailii ]

 
 B v Security Service; IPT 31-Mar-2004 - [2004] UKIPTrib 03_01

 
 Regina v E; CACD 26-Apr-2004 - Times, 27 May 2004; [2004] EWCA Crim 1243; [2004] 1 WLR 3279; [2004] 2 Cr App R 29
 
Bostock, Regina (on the Application Of) v Entwhistle and Another [2004] EWHC 1166 (Admin)
30 Apr 2004
Admn

Police
Ill health retirement - whether injured in course of duty.
[ Bailii ]
 
Phillips v Strathclyde Joint Police Board [2004] ScotCS 142
15 Jun 2004
ScS

Scotland, Police

[ Bailii ]
 
Phillips v Strathclyde Joint Police Board for Judicial Review of A Decision of A Medical Referee
15 Jun 2004
IHCS
Lord Justice Clerk And Lord Kirkwood And Lord Mcewan
Scotland, Police

[ ScotC ]
 
Regina (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Humberside Police Authority Times, 09 July 2004
2 Jul 2004
QBD
Stanley Burnton J
Police
The applicant required the respondent to suspend its chief constable saying that this was required to maintain confidence in the police, after severe criticism in an enquiry. The authority replied that local support was overwhelming. Held: The applicant properly took account of the need to maintain public confidence generally, and outside the area of the authority. The correctness or otherwise of the criticism was not at issue.
Police Act 1996 42(1A)(b)

 
Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina (on the Application of) v Humberside Police Authority and Another [2004] EWHC 1642 (Admin)
2 Jul 2004
Admn
Burnton J
Police

Police Act 1996 42(1A)
[ Bailii ]
 
Taylor (A Child Proceeding By his Mother and Litigation Friend C M Taylor) v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2004] EWCA Civ 858; Times, 13 July 2004; [2004] 3 All ER 503; [2004] 1 WLR 3155
6 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Sedley Vice-Chancellor, The Vice-Chancellor
Police, Torts - Other, Children
The Chief Constable appealed aganst a finding that his officers had wrongfully arrested and imprisoned the claimant. The claimant was 10 years old when arrested, and complained that the officers had not properly advised him of the nature and purpose of the arrest. Held: "The question is thus whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the particular case, the person arrested was told in simple, non-technical language that he could understand, the essential legal and factual grounds for his arrest." The cases are fact sensitive. The claimant was told he was being arrested for a violent disorder on an identified previous occasion. To ask the officer to go further would invite even more doubt. As to the period of detention, the judge was entitled to find on the evidence that the delay in interview had been unreasonable.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Barwise, Regina (on the Application Of) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2004] EWHC 1876 (Admin)
8 Jul 2004
Admn
Mccombe J
Police
The applicant sought judicial review of the decision of the respondent to remove his status of police constable. He had been absent from work with stress for a long time. He had failed to attend appointments on police premises. Held: The claimant could not be treated as having retired in the manner contended for by the defendant. Review granted
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Heath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis Times, 22 July 2004; [2004] EWCA Civ 493; [2005] ICR 329; [2005] IRLR 270
20 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Auld Holman Mr Justice Holman Lord Justice Neuberger
Police, Discrimination
The female civilian officer alleged sex discrimination against her by a police officer. Her complaint was heard at an internal disciplinary. She alleged sexual harrassment, and was further humiliated by the all male board's treatment of her complaint. The complaint now was solely as to her treatment by the Board. Held: The body was a quasi-judicial body and as such its members enjoyed judicial immunity in their actions. It decided issues akin to civil or criminal issues, and had procedures akin to a court. The claim must fail.
Auld LJ said: "As the employment tribunal well described in paras 9(o)-(q) of its extended reasons, and as the Employment Appeal Tribunal also found, it attaches to anything said or done by anybody in the course of judicial proceedings whatever the nature of the claim made in respect of such behaviour or statement, except for suits for malicious prosecution and prosecution for perjury and proceedings for contempt of court. That is because the rule is there, not to protect the person whose conduct in court might prompt such a claim, but to protect the integrity of the judicial process and hence the public interest. Given that rationale for the rule, there can be no logical basis for differentiating between different types of claim in its application."
Applying Marrinan, Auld LJ said: "The absolute immunity from suit is a core immunity in our system, critical to the integrity and effectiveness of our judicial system, which, save for a few well defined exceptions identified in para 17 above, applies to all forms of collateral action however worthy the claim and however much it may be in the public interest to ventilate it. Claims of unlawful discrimination are clearly of that importance, but no more than many others, such as the citizen's right to protect his own good name or good character or to claim for conspiracy to injure or for misfeasance in public office, say, in giving evidence in a criminal trial resulting in the claimant's loss of liberty."
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 6(2)(b) 41(1) - EC Council Directive 76/207
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina on the Application of Sussex Police Authority v Dr Cooling, French [2004] EWHC 1920 (Admin)
22 Jul 2004
QBD
Mr Justice Collins
Police

Police Pensions Regulations 1987
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 S, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper; HL 22-Jul-2004 - [2004] UKHL 39; Times, 23 July 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 2196; [2004] 4 All ER 193; [2004] UKHRR 967
 
Gillan and Quinton, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 1067; Times, 12 August 2004; [2004] 3 WLR 1144; [2005] QB 388
29 Jul 2004
CA
The Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales Lord Justice Buxton And Lady Justice Arden Dbe
Police, Human Rights
The appellants had challenged the lawfulness of being stopped and searched by police. The officers relied on an authorisation made under the 2000 Act. They had been on their way to attending an arms fair, intending to demonstrate. Held: The Act was to be interpreted without deference to the respondent, and because of the powers granted, it had to be interpreted restrictively. There was insufficient evidence that the respondent had properly considered the instructions to be given to his officers. Police officers had not given statements, only their notebooks had been made available. "The onus is on the first respondents to show that the interference with the appellants of which complaint is made was lawful. It is not possible to say that the onus has been discharged on the evidence before us. On the appellants' evidence remarks were made that suggest that the powers could have been used in order "to police" the protest. This would not be a lawful use of the power."
It was accepted that the stops were an interference with the claimants' article 8 rights, but this was proportionate and in accordance with law.
and “It is clear that Parliament, unusually, has permitted random stopping and searching, but, as we have already indicated when examining the language of the relevant sections, made the use of that power subject to safeguards. The power is only to be used for a single specified purpose for a period of an authorisation granted by a senior officer and confirmed by the Secretary of State. Furthermore, the authorisation only has a limited life unless renewed.
We do not find it surprising that the word 'expedient' should appear in section 44(3) in conjunction with the power to authorise. The statutory scheme is to leave how the power is to be used to the discretion of the senior officer. In agreement with the Divisional Court, we would give the word its ordinary meaning of advantageous. It is entirely consistent with the framework of the legislation that a power of this sort should be exercised when a senior police officer considers it is advantageous to exercise the power for the prevention of acts of terrorism.
Interpreted in this way, sections 44 and 45 could not conflict with the provisions of the Articles of the ECHR. If those Articles were to be infringed it would be because of the manner of the exercise of the power, not its existence. Any possible infringement of the ECHR would depend on the circumstances in which the power that the sections give is exercised.”
Terrorism Act 2000 44 - European Convention on Human Rights 5 8 10
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (X) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police Times, 17 August 2004; [2004] EWCA Civ 1068; [2005] 1 WLR 65
30 Jul 2004
CA
Woolf LCJ, Mummery, Laws, LJJ
Police, Human Rights
The claimant had been accused of offences, but the prosecution had been discontinued when the child victims had failed to identify him. The police had nevertheless notified potential employers and he had been unable to obtain work as a social worker. Held: The Chief Constable's appeal succeeded. In order for the police to include in an enhanced disclosure material of this kind, he had to be satisfied that the information had to be relevant for a position which would regularly involve working with children or vulnerable adults. What was to be included was a matter for the opinion of the Chief Constable, but he had a duty to disclose the elements which were relevant. The policy served a pressing social need. It might be unfortunate if the claimant had been wrongly identified, but he would be in the same position if the employer had asked the same questions which a prudent employer might ask, namely whether he had ever been charged with any offences. The disclosure of such material could not be a breach of the claimant's Article 8 rights.
Lord Woolf CJ described the general scheme of the legislation: ". . . it is useful to note the following significant aspects of the statutory scheme involving ECRCs.
(i) The whole process of obtaining an ECRC is initiated by the person to whom the certificate will relate. The certificate is for his purposes to enable him to obtain employment which, at least in practical terms, will not be available to him unless he obtains a certificate.
(ii) The certificate will only be seen by the applicant and his prospective employer.
(iii) The applicant has the opportunity to persuade the Secretary of State to correct the certificate.
(iv) The Chief Constable is under a duty to provide the information referred to in section 115(7). This is subject to the requirement that the information might be relevant and ought to be included in the certificate. What might be relevant and what ought to be included is a matter for the opinion of the Chief Constable.
(v) The applicant is in a position to provide additional information if he wishes, whether in conflict with the certificate or not, to the prospective employer and it is the prospective employer who will make the decision as to whether he should or should not be employed." and
" Having regard to the language of section 115, the Chief Constable was under a duty to disclose if the information might be relevant, unless there was some good reason for not making such a disclosure.
This was obviously required by Parliament because it was important (for the protection of children and vulnerable adults) that the information should be disclosed even if it only might be true. If it might be true, the person who was proposing to employ the claimant should be entitled to take it into account before the decision was made as to whether or not to employ the claimant. This was the policy of the legislation in order to serve a pressing social need."
Lord Woolf said that s115 was compliant with the convention: "It is helpful to note that while it is accepted by both parties that the information which is included in the ECRC might offend against article 8(1), it is not suggested that the legislation itself contravenes article 8. No doubt this is because disclosure of the information contained in the certificate would be "in accordance with the law" and "necessary in a democratic society", in the interests of public safety and for the prevention of crime and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This country must, through its legislature, be entitled to enable information to be available to prospective employers, where the nature of the employment means that particular care should be taken to ensure that those who are working with the appropriate categories of persons can be relied on to do so, without those in their care coming to harm if they are under the age of 18 or vulnerable adults." and " … how can the Chief Constable's decision to disclose be challenged under article 8? As already indicated, the Chief Constable starts off with the advantage that his statutory role is not in conflict with article 8, because the statute meets the requirements of article 8(2). It follows also, that as long as the Chief Constable was entitled to form the opinion that the information disclosed might be relevant, then absent any untoward circumstance which is not present here, it is difficult to see that there can be any reason why the information that "might be relevant", ought not to be included in the certificate. I accept that it is possible that there could be cases where the information should not be included in the certificate because it is disproportionate to do so; the information might be as to some trifling matter; it may be that the evidence made it so unlikely that the information was correct, that it again would be disproportionate to disclose it. These were not, in my judgment, the situations on the facts before the Chief Constable." and
"The information which was disclosed, was information which a responsible employer in this field would want to know before making a decision as to whether to employ the claimant. The claimant is seeking to prevent that information being available. In my judgment, the making available of that information in accordance with the law, as occurred here, could not be contrary to article 8(2)."
Police Act 1997 115 - European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Settelen and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2004] EWHC 2171 (Ch)
29 Sep 2004
ChD
Peter Smith J
Police, Costs
The claimants had made application for tapes held by the respondent to be released. The claimant offered undertakings as to their preservation, and agreement had been reached. The outstanding issue was as to costs. The tapes were recorded by the claimant of the late Diana, Princess of Wales. Held: To justify retention of a document, or property, it must be necessary in all the circumstances. Had the police been open in their dealings it could have been dealt with more quickly. Despite court orders the tape had been copied whilst in the possession of the police, and it was not for them now to assert that they would keep it more securely. They should pay the costs.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 19 22
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Stanley and others) v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis and Another Times, 22 October 2004
7 Oct 2004
QBD
Kennedy LJ, Treacy J
Police, Human Rights
The claimants had been made subject to Anti-Social Behaviour orders (ASBOs), and complained that the publicity given to the orders by the respondent violated their human rights. Held: It was part of the effectiveness of an ASBO that it should be publicised, and that would include the use of photographs. That publicity would have several aims, which would overlap. There was no case for saying the publicity should be strictly limited to the restricted area proposed.


 
 Bernard v The Attorney General of Jamaica; PC 7-Oct-2004 - [2004] UKPC 47; No. 30 of 2003; [2005] IRLR 398
 
R and others (on the Application Of) v Metroplitan Police Commssioner and others [2004] EWHC 2229 (Admin)
7 Oct 2004
Admn

Police
Complaint about publicity given to anti-social behaviour order.
[ Bailii ]
 
Kohanzad v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2004] EWCA Civ 1387
8 Oct 2004
CA

Police, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Jones v Ministry of Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya As Saudiya Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 1394; Times, 01 November 2004; [2005] 2 WLR 808
28 Oct 2004
CA
Mance LJ
Torts - Other, Personal Injury, Police, International
The claimants sought damages alleging torture by the respondent whilst held in custody in Saudi Arabia. Held: Although the state enjoyed freedom from action, where the acts were ones of torture, and action could proceed against state officials involved personally. The court had been correct to reject the claim against the state. Despite other developments, states still enjoyed immunity from such claims, and normally its officials should receive the same protection, and even if the official had infringed the country's national law. However claims against officials could not be given blanket protection, because that would deprive applicants such as the present of any remedy. A delicate balancing act would be required in each case to test the various issues of jurisdiction and human rights. However the offence of torture itself had a special status under international law, and such acts could not be the acts of a state. Claims to state immunity should be resolved at an early stage in the proceedings.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Fernie, Regina (on the Application Of) v Lincolnshire Police [2004] EWHC 3086 (Admin)
1 Nov 2004
Admn

Police

[ Bailii ]
 
Bennett v Officers A and B and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2004] EWCA Civ 1439; [2004] All ER 27
2 Nov 2004
CA
Lord Justice Mummery Mr Justice Maurice Kay
Police, Coroners, Human Rights
Police Officers had been involved in a shooting in which a man died. They were granted anonymity before the coroner's court, on evidence suggesting they might be at risk. The family of the deceased appealed. Held: The coroner misdirected herself in respect of the threshold of risk test by allowing for 'a reasonable chance' of a threat, but the misdirection was not such as to require this matter to be remitted to her for a further hearing.
European Convention on Human Rights 2
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (A and Another) v Inner South London Coroner Times, 11 November 2004
2 Nov 2004
CA

Coroners, Police
Police officers sought anonymity when asked to appear before a coroner's court, citing fear of violence if named. The family of the deceased appealed an order granting that to them. Held: The coroner had heard evidence that a family member had told the officers they would be at risk if a verdict of unlawful killing was not returned. The decision by the coroner not to grant anonymity was a mistake.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Blench v Director of Public Prosecutions [2004] EWHC 2717 (Admin)
5 Nov 2004
Admn
Thomas LJ, Fulford J
Crime, Police
The defendant appealed against his conviction for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty under section 89. He had argued that he had no case to answer. The officers had received an emergency call to the house, but the female caller had told them then not to come. On arrival, the defendant had told them to get off his property. Fearing violence to a child, the police used CS gas to obtain entry under the 1984 Act and arrested him for breach of the peace. Held: The appeal failed. The police had information that a child was at risk. They had the power under the 1984 Act to enter to investigate that matter, and their actions were lawful. Since their actions were under the 1984 Act, the questions detailed in Bibby, which dealt with the use of common law powers, did not arise.
Police Act 1996 89 - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 17(1)(e)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Wood v United Kingdom Times, 23 November 2004
16 Nov 2004
ECHR

Human Rights, Police
Police officers had placed suspects in a cell together and covertly recorded their conversation in order to obtain evidence against them. The events took place in 1999. Held: The recording was outside any legal system of control and interefred with the defendants right to respect for his private life. The action infringed both articles 8 and 13.
European Convention on Human Rights 8 13
1 Cites


 
Merseyside Police v Reynolds [2004] EWHC 2862 (Admin)
19 Nov 2004
Admn

Criminal Practice, Police

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 294
[ Bailii ]
 
Render v Former Commonwealth Police Commissioner (Whitrod) [2004] EWCA Civ 1768
23 Nov 2004
CA

Police, International

[ Bailii ]

 
 Al-Fayed and others v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others; CA 25-Nov-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 1579
 
Regina (Anderson and Others) v HM Coroner for Inner North Greater London [2004] EWHC 2729 (Admin)
26 Nov 2004
QBD
Mr Justice Collins
Coroners, Police
The deceased suffered depressive mental illness, and was detained outside on a cold night naked and in a cannabis induced delirium. Because of his size, additional officers were called upon to assist restraining him. He was taken to hospital, but died of a cardiac arrest whilst being restrained pending the arrival of a doctor. The family believed excessive force had been used. The coroner's jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing. The officers asked the court to quash the verdict. Held: The coroner would have been justified in not leaving the verdict of unlawful killing to the jury: "The evidence to support it was very tenuous and the absence of any criticism of the police was a telling point. But it was more likely that being held face down would have produced hypoxia and so it was open to the jury to find causation proved. It was vitally important that they should have received a careful direction so that they knew that it was only if the holding face down had contributed substantially to hypoxia and that hypoxia had contributed substantially to death that a verdict of unlawful killing could be found. They received no such direction. Thus I am just persuaded that the coroner did not err in law in leaving unlawful killing to the jury. Equally, he would not have erred if he had declined to leave it. " However: "I have no doubt that a verdict of unlawful killing was not and would not be a just verdict." The verdict was quashed.
Mental Health Act 1983 136
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Coghlan and Others v Manchester Police and Another; Admn 2-Dec-2004 - [2004] EWHC 2801 (Admin); [2005] 2 All ER 890; [2005] ACD 34
 
Wood v Chief Constable West Midlands Police [2004] EWCA Civ 1638; Times, 13 December 2004; [2005] EMLR 20
8 Dec 2004
CA
May LJ, Dyson LJ, Wall LJ
Police, Defamation
The claimant was a director of a limited company. A Detective Chief Inspector with responsibility for crime prevention was investigating a series of car thefts and arrested the claimant's business partner and, before the accused had even stood his trial, informed members of the insurance industry, such as the manager of the Association of British Insurers Crime and Fraud Prevention Bureau, that he was guilty. In fact he was subsequently acquitted. The claimant complained that the letters associating him and the business with the accused meant and were understood to mean that he had aided and abetted the commission of numerous serious criminal offences. The director had not personally been suspect, but felt he had been defamed. The defendant appealed summary judgment against him for libel, complaining that the claimant had been allowed to add a claim for slander late in the day. Held: The judge had to find an equitable solution before allowing a late amendment. The judge had not gone through a detailed analysis, but had addressed the fundamental issue.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Laporte, Regina (on the Application of) v Gloucestershire Constabulary and others [2005] QB 678; [2004] EWCA Civ 1639; Times, 13 December 2004; [2005] All ER 473
8 Dec 2004
CA
Lord Justice Rix The Lord Chief Justice Of England &Amp; Wales Lord Justice Clarke
Police, Human Rights
The claimant had been in a bus taking her and others to an intended demonstration. The police feared breaches of the peace, and stopped the bus, and ordered the driver to return to London, and escorted it to ensure it did not stop. Held: The police were correct to anticipate a breach of the peace and were correct to stop the coach: " . . . it is necessary to distinguish between arrest and preventive action short of arrest, including temporary detention. We regard what is sufficiently "imminent" to justify taking action to prevent a breach of the peace as dependent on all the circumstances. . . What preventive action was necessary and proportionate, however, would be very much influenced by how close in proximity, both in place and time, the location of the apprehended breach of the peace was." However the police exceeded their powers in returning the passengers to London as virtual prisoners.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Merseyside Police Authority, Regina (on the Application Of) v Gidlow and Another [2004] EWHC 2807 (Admin)
8 Dec 2004
Admn

Police, Personal Injury
Whether a police officer's diagnosed adjustment disorder or mixed anxiety/depression was "an injury received in the execution of his duty as a police constable" within the meaning of the regulations.
Police Pensions Regulations 1987 H2
[ Bailii ]
 
The British-Irish Rights Watch and Others v Security Service, Gchq and The Sis [2004] UKIPTrib 01_77
9 Dec 2004
IPT

Police, Human Rights

[ Bailii ]
 
Kennedy v Security Services, Gchq and The Met [2004] UKIPTrib 01_62_3
9 Dec 2004
IPT

Police, Human Rights

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.